There ya go. A non-biased, non-emotional statement made. Feels good to do, doesn't it?doug wrote:Prop E passed by a large margin 87.55%.
Roughly 39,000 turned out for the election. That's gotta be closer to 20-25% of voters, no?
- 1,610
Roughly 39,000 turned out for the election. That's gotta be closer to 20-25% of voters, no?
- 11K
They're lying to you.RobbyD wrote:I have had more than just one or two people say that one of the reasons they don't live in the City is the extra tax.
Could it be that this issue was put on the ballot not because Rex and Co. think it is actually a good idea, or that it has a chance of passing, but because they want to force the city "leaders" to start thinking seriously about funding the government more effectively in the future? Simply introducing the possibility that the public could throw out the earnings tax, where before it was taken for granted, should (and I say should) make the city really start working on streamlining costs and generating new revenue as a hedge. If indeed this was the point AND it works, Sinquefield truly is a chess master.
^ agreed, on all points.
Should be noted that ~1% of the population voted to keep the earnings tax. Either way, the discussion has started on how to "streamline".
Should be noted that ~1% of the population voted to keep the earnings tax. Either way, the discussion has started on how to "streamline".
I'm not so sure that's true...no motive...Alex Ihnen wrote:They're lying to you.RobbyD wrote:I have had more than just one or two people say that one of the reasons they don't live in the City is the extra tax.
I do agree that many people already have their mind made up about where to live and will pile on reasons that justify their views without really thinking too deeply about it...The 1% earnings tax probably isn't a deal breaker to people I've talked to, but just the vague notion of an additional tax on top of taxes people are used to paying is a turn off to some, if not many...
- 39
Wow! Congratulations to the city and city voters. Between this and the Metro funding victory last year in St. Louis county, it seems that the region hasn't bought into the bogus tax-cut panaceas peddled by the right.
As far as turn-offs to city living go, the 1% earnings tax is nothing compared to the immediate decline that the city would suffer without it. I didn't like paying it, either - who does? But the difference between an adult and a child is that an adult understands that you can't get something for nothing (i.e., an orderly, clean, safe, educated city without paying taxes).
As far as turn-offs to city living go, the 1% earnings tax is nothing compared to the immediate decline that the city would suffer without it. I didn't like paying it, either - who does? But the difference between an adult and a child is that an adult understands that you can't get something for nothing (i.e., an orderly, clean, safe, educated city without paying taxes).
^In all fairness, the many concerns about tax burdens that I have heard expressed are less like childish rants about wanting something for nothing and more like adult concerns over how it is that the City can have additional taxes and seem to still struggle to provide basic services...I generally think I know the reason why this perception exists and am confident the City will continue to streamline its operation and find improved ways to pay the bills...
Americans don't want to pull the plug on gov't like some extreme right-wingers would like to have happen, as is evidenced by the two votes you reference, but nor do the majority seem to be interested in sustained expansions of gov't spending, as is evidenced by the fact we have a Republican Speaker of the House two short years removed from the Obama revolution...
IMO the earnings tax will go away and something updated and more effective will take its place...There are better solutions to our revenue problems than the current system...
Americans don't want to pull the plug on gov't like some extreme right-wingers would like to have happen, as is evidenced by the two votes you reference, but nor do the majority seem to be interested in sustained expansions of gov't spending, as is evidenced by the fact we have a Republican Speaker of the House two short years removed from the Obama revolution...
IMO the earnings tax will go away and something updated and more effective will take its place...There are better solutions to our revenue problems than the current system...
- 453
Such as? Look, it is a damn difficult business trying to get finances right in a city like Saint Louis that has so little control over the larger socio-economic trends that pose such extraordinary challenges. (Things are so screwed up in Missouri that we now have Saint Charles looking to award TIF to Schnuck's to move a store down a few blocks to the new Lindenwood development. Truly insane.) Saint Louis City has been dealt a bad hand, and we don't have any good alternatives to the earings tax; certainly Show-Me-Institute doesn't; I mean, seriously, its fancy-pants white paper idea was to assess a land tax that it admited would disproportionately burden low and middle class home-owners.RobbyD wrote:IMO the earnings tax will go away and something updated and more effective will take its place...There are better solutions to our revenue problems than the current system...
- 11K
Turnout was 20% of those eligible to vote and 88% of those voted to keep the earnings tax. That's not 1%.ttricamo wrote:^ agreed, on all points.
Should be noted that ~1% of the population voted to keep the earnings tax. Either way, the discussion has started on how to "streamline".
Well, that is roughly ~1% of the population any way you cut it. Let's go with your 20% of eligible voters. How many of those voters were City Employees? My only point is that 20% is pretty low.
Your outlook on this has always been pretty ho-hum business as usual than you spend a few sentences describing why St. Louis could never live without the earnings tax than you usually call-out what you think is pure B.S. on the part of the Show Me Institute. Its actually a pretty great example of an old-guard St. Louis mindset.Roger Wyoming wrote:Such as?RobbyD wrote:IMO the earnings tax will go away and something updated and more effective will take its place...There are better solutions to our revenue problems than the current system...
Allow your thoughts to move beyond the physical boundaries of St. Louis City. Think Regionally. There is an answer to eliminating the earnings tax, or at least supplementing it with other sources of revenue. In true Show-Me fashion, you're going to ask for proof of this and I unfortunately don't have the time to provide it for you.
Using Alex's numbers, 17.6% of the entire voter-able city population decided to let City Hall keep things "business as usual". What percentage of those people were city workers or within the sphere of influence of City Hall?
Meanwhile:
Taxes continue to rise (FACT)
The City loses population (FACT)
We've yet to hear about any reduction in City Overhead save for the firefighters that they couldn't afford anyway (FACT)
In other words - We need to tax you more even though we're not going to reduce leadership costs because we've lost population. Oh by the way, we couldn't afford these firefighters in the first place and we need to let them go, potentially jeopardizing your safety.
Y'all nuts!
- 11K
20% is high for an off-year election - no state-wide/federal candidates. Everyone had the opportunity to vote. A non-vote is a vote for the status quo. It's kind of dumb to state the percent of population. You're right, my 2 1/2yo and 4mo didn't vote to end the tax. So what? That's meaningless.ttricamo wrote:Well, that is roughly ~1% of the population any way you cut it. Let's go with your 20% of eligible voters. How many of those voters were City Employees? My only point is that 20% is pretty low.
Alex Ihnen wrote:A non-vote is a vote for the status quo.
That's actually incorrect. Disenchantment (per wikipedia) and Racial Factors are actually the larger reason for low voter turnout.
My point was that a small percentage of people voted to keep the earnings tax and that a double digit percentage of that small percentage is probably receiving some sort of income or kickback from the tax. The fact that you don't see the Conflict of Interest almost baffles me. Not to mention the fact that several of the people taxed were not allowed to vote, myself included.
- 11K
^ Sorry, I bow to Wikipedia. I am pleased that you are only "almost baffled".
- 339
We could jack up the taxes on parking garages...that might appease not only City Hall but also doug.Roger Wyoming wrote:Such as? Look, it is a damn difficult business trying to get finances right in a city like Saint Louis that has so little control over the larger socio-economic trends that pose such extraordinary challenges. (Things are so screwed up in Missouri that we now have Saint Charles looking to award TIF to Schnuck's to move a store down a few blocks to the new Lindenwood development. Truly insane.) Saint Louis City has been dealt a bad hand, and we don't have any good alternatives to the earings tax; certainly Show-Me-Institute doesn't; I mean, seriously, its fancy-pants white paper idea was to assess a land tax that it admited would disproportionately burden low and middle class home-owners.RobbyD wrote:IMO the earnings tax will go away and something updated and more effective will take its place...There are better solutions to our revenue problems than the current system...
/joking around
- 453
5c. tax on every utterance of "What high school did you go to?"timeforguinness wrote:
We could jack up the taxes on parking garages...that might appease not only City Hall but also doug.
/joking around
- 39
What about the overwhelming rejection of Sinquefield's Prop A by city voters last fall, during a Congressional midterm election? Lemme guess: those voters were all getting "kickbacks" too. Oh, brother...ttricamo wrote:My point was that a small percentage of people voted to keep the earnings tax and that a double digit percentage of that small percentage is probably receiving some sort of income or kickback from the tax.
I don't personally know anyone who works for the city, but I know dozens who voted to keep the earnings tax. Consider the possibility that the majority of city voters understand that things like firetrucks, parks, and streetlights cost money.
Or, apparently, time to provide even the broadest, most general outline of what that "answer" might conceivably be. A less than convincing answer there, chief.ttricamo wrote:There is an answer to eliminating the earnings tax, or at least supplementing it with other sources of revenue. In true Show-Me fashion, you're going to ask for proof of this and I unfortunately don't have the time to provide it for you.
Slackers! If this were Chicago, those kids would've voted 2 or 3 times each!Alex Ihnen wrote:You're right, my 2 1/2yo and 4mo didn't vote to end the tax.
Some form of tax code that eases the burden on non-residents and moves the City resident burden towards consumption rather than earnings would be my vote...
The City has to move in a new direction (that will have different consequences to be sure)...There is no way to build a strong financial portfolio if every five years the apple cart 'may' be completely overturned...
The City has to move in a new direction (that will have different consequences to be sure)...There is no way to build a strong financial portfolio if every five years the apple cart 'may' be completely overturned...
Dear Alex,Alex Ihnen wrote:^ Sorry, I bow to Wikipedia. I am pleased that you are only "almost baffled".
I promise to help find the person that put a turd in your coffee cup.
Your friend,
Tom
Wow. So much for civil discourse.ttricamo wrote:Dear Alex,
I promise to help find the person that put a turd in your coffee cup.
Your friend,
Tom
34,190 decided to keep the earnings tax. I think its probable that at least 3400 of those people work for the city or receive pension/healthcare benefits from the city (kickbacks), all of which are line items in the General Fund. I understand and agree with your second point. And, I'm an advocate of paying taxes. However, I think many people saw the elimination of this tax as a change agent, albeit a harsh one. Now Slay et al have another five years to keep making the promise that they're "streamlining". How will you feel if taxes go up in that time? This again is a perfect example of the legislature never passing a law that will affect the jobs of the legislature.southsidered wrote:What about the overwhelming rejection of Sinquefield's Prop A by city voters last fall, during a Congressional midterm election? Lemme guess: those voters were all getting "kickbacks" too. Oh, brother...
I don't personally know anyone who works for the city, but I know dozens who voted to keep the earnings tax. Consider the possibility that the majority of city voters understand that things like firetrucks, parks, and streetlights cost money.
Yes, I believe the long term net positive effect of eliminating the Earnings Tax trumps the negative, near-term effect. I'm not a moron; of course there would be a scramble to fill the gap of the earnings tax, which would have been phased out (a point that was lost in the fear mongering). And, again, I believe in paying taxes that benefit everybody.
http://www.showmeinstitute.org/publicat ... s-bad.html
My response was vague, admittedly. I didn't want to hijack this thread with my analysis of continued wasteful spending of tax dollars by the county and the city. More on that topic here: http://nextstl.com/forum/viewtopic.php? ... &start=165southsidered wrote:Or, apparently, time to provide even the broadest, most general outline of what that "answer" might conceivably be. A less than convincing answer there, chief.
Amazingly, even after removing every person you claim is receiving a "kickback", the Prop E vote would still show 86% in support of retaining the earnings tax.ttricamo wrote:34,190 decided to keep the earnings tax. I think its probable that at least 3400 of those people work for the city or receive pension/healthcare benefits from the city (kickbacks), all of which are line items in the General Fund.
Mad props to goat314 for providing a Channel 11 news bit on this. - http://www.mc4be.com/STL_Intergovt_Report.pdf
Boom goes the dynamite. Funding shortfall solutions for the ridiculous Earnings Tax begins on page 171.
Boom goes the dynamite. Funding shortfall solutions for the ridiculous Earnings Tax begins on page 171.